On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:41:11AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:40:12PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > On Fri Dec 11, 2015 at 10:43:43AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > On 2015/12/11 11:24, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:57:43PM +0100,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:40:12PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> On Fri Dec 11, 2015 at 10:43:43AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2015/12/11 11:24, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:57:43PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > > > Hey everybody,
> > > >
> > > > for those
On Fri Dec 11, 2015 at 10:43:43AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/12/11 11:24, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:57:43PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > > Hey everybody,
> > >
> > > for those who can not wait (like me) here is an update for keepassx.
> > > I hope
Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Dear keepassx users and port veterans,
>
> after long workdays before the Xmas break, here is a new updated diff
> with your hints:
>
> - add DWITH_CXX11=no
> - fix WANTLIB
> - fix and add LIB_DEPENDS
> - SHARED_ONLY tagged
> - fix PLIST
> - add gtk-update-icon-cache
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:57:43PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> Hey everybody,
>
> for those who can not wait (like me) here is an update for keepassx.
> I hope steven@ can use it for more tests or a better port.
>
> Tested @amd64 with my old *.kdb file without problems.
Works fine for me on
On Fri Dec 11, 2015 at 11:24:43AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:57:43PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > Hey everybody,
> >
> > for those who can not wait (like me) here is an update for keepassx.
> > I hope steven@ can use it for more tests or a better port.
> >
> >
On 2015/12/11 11:24, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:57:43PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > Hey everybody,
> >
> > for those who can not wait (like me) here is an update for keepassx.
> > I hope steven@ can use it for more tests or a better port.
> >
> > Tested @amd64 with
Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > Are you sure you need ports gcc ?
> >
> Yes I'm sure. C++11. Okay, it's optional but default on.
Yeah, my initial reaction that we should check the code carefully before
disabling C++11. Seems like it might expose some poorly tested paths.
And I don't know whether
